I believe your comments on separation of powers where you speak about political bias are a bit too biased. Particularly, if we are to discuss the constitution or law there should be no partisan bias and your comments clearly have a bias. Especially when you comment on “unelected judges” I realize you are an elected judge, but have you forgotten why the framers wanted federal judges to not be elected? The need to prevent the judges from being influenced by voters? Most voters have little to no understanding of how our government works, they believe a president is in charge of everyone - including Congress and the judiciary. Do we want judges influenced by those voters? If so, we might as well roll up the constitution and put it in a box because it doesn’t matter anymore.
First, where in Article II, Section 1 does it say the president has all executive power? I’ll give you a hint, the word “all” is not included. Are we now adding words to the constitution when the framers chose to exclude them?
Second, the case you reference is about appropriation of funds. You ask “Can the judiciary substitute its judgement for the President when deciding whether or not to expend agency funds?” Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975) and Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) answered that already. The president does not have any judgment on spending funds, Congress does. The judiciary is not substituting their judgment, they are ruling the president cannot substitute his judgment for that of congress.
Third, on nationwide injunctions, you claim it’s political bias driving the injunctions and mention how the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the administration, but most recently in the J.G.G. Case they ruled on a procedural matter of venue and almost immediately the case was again filed in the Southern District of Texas, where SCOTUS said the correct venue is, and a Trump appointed judge issued a TRO within hours of the filing. Is there a political bias or an administration who ignores the law?
If a court invalidates a law on its face rather than as applied to a specific party does it not provide relief to non-parties nationwide since it cannot be enforced? If I take a case to the district court saying an executive order has caused me harm and the court decides the executive order violates the law, would it provide relief for non-parties nationwide?
You make some really great points, and I appreciate seeing someone engage with the actual legal and constitutional issues here rather than just repeating partisan talking points. It’s nice to see someone reference case law and the Founders’ intent instead of twisting those things to fit an agenda, like Houchin is doing. He wasn’t writing about separation of powers when judges issued injunctions against Biden.
Unfortunately, I doubt he’ll respond. Not because there’s nothing to say, but because there’s no solid way to defend the position he’s pushing without either misreading the Constitution or ignoring precedent altogether. If he does reply, he’ll probably do what he usually does: deflect, cherry-pick a quote or two out of context, and then rely on vague rhetoric about “accountability” or “activist judges” without actually engaging with the legal structure of separation of powers.
I believe your comments on separation of powers where you speak about political bias are a bit too biased. Particularly, if we are to discuss the constitution or law there should be no partisan bias and your comments clearly have a bias. Especially when you comment on “unelected judges” I realize you are an elected judge, but have you forgotten why the framers wanted federal judges to not be elected? The need to prevent the judges from being influenced by voters? Most voters have little to no understanding of how our government works, they believe a president is in charge of everyone - including Congress and the judiciary. Do we want judges influenced by those voters? If so, we might as well roll up the constitution and put it in a box because it doesn’t matter anymore.
First, where in Article II, Section 1 does it say the president has all executive power? I’ll give you a hint, the word “all” is not included. Are we now adding words to the constitution when the framers chose to exclude them?
Second, the case you reference is about appropriation of funds. You ask “Can the judiciary substitute its judgement for the President when deciding whether or not to expend agency funds?” Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975) and Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) answered that already. The president does not have any judgment on spending funds, Congress does. The judiciary is not substituting their judgment, they are ruling the president cannot substitute his judgment for that of congress.
Third, on nationwide injunctions, you claim it’s political bias driving the injunctions and mention how the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the administration, but most recently in the J.G.G. Case they ruled on a procedural matter of venue and almost immediately the case was again filed in the Southern District of Texas, where SCOTUS said the correct venue is, and a Trump appointed judge issued a TRO within hours of the filing. Is there a political bias or an administration who ignores the law?
If a court invalidates a law on its face rather than as applied to a specific party does it not provide relief to non-parties nationwide since it cannot be enforced? If I take a case to the district court saying an executive order has caused me harm and the court decides the executive order violates the law, would it provide relief for non-parties nationwide?
You make some really great points, and I appreciate seeing someone engage with the actual legal and constitutional issues here rather than just repeating partisan talking points. It’s nice to see someone reference case law and the Founders’ intent instead of twisting those things to fit an agenda, like Houchin is doing. He wasn’t writing about separation of powers when judges issued injunctions against Biden.
Unfortunately, I doubt he’ll respond. Not because there’s nothing to say, but because there’s no solid way to defend the position he’s pushing without either misreading the Constitution or ignoring precedent altogether. If he does reply, he’ll probably do what he usually does: deflect, cherry-pick a quote or two out of context, and then rely on vague rhetoric about “accountability” or “activist judges” without actually engaging with the legal structure of separation of powers.